jsprinkles

Elder has different meanings in different denominations, and isn't unique to Protestants (it is, however, mostly Christian). Specifically, in the Mormon church, it's quite different.

I'm not sure how you expect the discussion to be accurate or informative without details that the article you summarized happily goes into. We already see confusion about where it's rolled out because we're reading you, not Twitter Engineering.

What does your post add to theirs? Honestly?

This entry doesn't get into details because it's blog spam, submitted by the blogger himself.

You want this: http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/05/improving-performance...

Next, tell us why goto is bad.

I can't imagine a scenario, throughout history or today, in which debugging would be unnecessary. It's wisdom to realize that, and more wisdom to realize that "debugging" is a nebulous term here that people are nailing down in different ways.

Test-driven development will never replace debugging, and saying otherwise implies a misunderstanding of one of them.

I debug because I'm smart, and I enjoy it, and I frequently find bugs that I didn't know existed by seeing inside a frame as it's executing. Debugging is a crucial skill in many fields, particularly embedded work (which is the irony in your comment), and the insight from breakpoints and a couple afternoons of digging is unique among our tools. I hate sweeping generalizations of how programming should be done, regardless of what they are.

Watch this sweeping generalization:

If you don't love debugging, I don't think you're a seasoned or valuable programmer.

Assuming these people did add UAV monitoring (a leap), and assuming a UAV was dispatched to every report of gunfire (another leap), it doesn't matter if the assailants shoot it down because they already know where the gunshot was and, with a decent response time (another leap), officers can be there in minutes.

Excellent! They are credible. Why? Because you said so? That is good information, but just hearing your reasoning would make your comment a lot more credible itself without your reputation, which many people aren't familiar with. Other people here are making the case that the motives behind this research aren't perfectly pure, so, presenting the unique insight that you have on the credibility of this group would be awesome and potentially shift the topic of conversation.

It isn't just this particular instance that is driving my comment (in which I acknowledge your reputation, and nobody else's, a small oversight in your reply). The driving force is more your showing up in threads, saying something either plainly obvious or, worse, absolutely confusing, and then expecting your reputation to carry your comment the rest of the way. Most of the time, the reasoning behind your comment is completely unclear. It isn't avoiding drama to elaborate, it's making your point clearer and not relying upon a name you've created for yourself in this community when the rationale behind your opinion is unclear to those of us without your ability. The other comment that annoyed me recently, and most front of mind, was this one about nginx[1]:

"This is a very bad bug, and you should fix it ASAP. Don't wait."

Two things here:

    1. Thank you, Captain Obvious. What an enlightening comment.
    2. What does "very bad" mean?

The actual situation related to that vulnerability was much more complex, and the threat fairly small. You, however, glossed right over that and skipped to basically informing the lay to panic, then got really snarky when people questioned you on the motivation. I don't believe that making the lay panic is the right way to achieve greater security, regardless of your credentials, and this is one of those cases where the reasoning behind your comment would have gone a long way.

Think about what a novice admin walks away from that comment with. Yes, he upgrades, awesome. That's exactly what we expect of administrators. There's something more sinister underlying your end result, though, which is that you've trained an administrator to act on what you and other security professionals say when it comes to security, without any explanation or reason. Security would be a much better place if people started gaining the ability to think for themselves and understand the issue, and you're working to reverse that. I see this crap with bcrypt, too. "Just use bcrypt." "Why?" "Because smart people said so." Now what if you fuck up? What if you give bad advice?[2] Half of this community is going to take you at face value, because you don't present supporting facts for your position to be debated openly. Because it's 'tiring'.

You are quite unmatched in the security arena with your technical prowess. There's no question of that. It's comments like these, however, that make me annoyed that you're using said reputation inappropriately, and any questioning you receive on the matter leads to single-sentence snark like the pointless gray comment in this thread. Before asking why I commented, consider your own comments and the different standard you hold your own commentary to in this forum.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3709269

[2]: I fully expect a snarky reply to this hypothetical, so make it good.

That wasn't the gist of my comment, but okay. I'm disappointed that you feel the rest of my comment wasn't worth your time, and you chose to attach to a throwaway hypothetical. Alas, it was worth a shot.

I'm respectful of your qualifications, but annoyed when you use your credentials without qualification. A paranoid man might assume your comments are strategically placed to benefit parties you're aligned with, based on how little context there is here; I know better, others might not.

"These are good guys. This paper is the real deal."

I appreciate what you bring to HN, but that this is the top comment worries me, particularly when it comes to security of all things. There's valuable comments that are contrary to your opinion surrounding you, and I wish you'd explain your side a bit more clearly in cases like this.

Fair. I agree with that.

It is lame-o, and you can say that to his face. It's this comment[1] and other distilled thoughts from the thread, essentially, in blog post form and resubmitted to HN. "Accomplished" just became "determined". PageRank at work, here, folks.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4024347

Frankly, I have no idea who he is, and I tend to respect opinions more if they're based in real experiences rather than observation (not to say I don't respect well-argued opinions from observation, it's just relative). It's a mystery to dig into who he is, too, and the best I've been able to find is this:

http://www.dustincurtis.com/about.html

Which just says, vaguely, that he's a neuroscience student who "put his degree on hold". Anybody know who this guy is, and why his opinion is this important to HN and 35,000 Twitter followers? Honestly, I'm just curious. Is this guy some kind of valley culture icon? I've noticed the same trend of all of his posts hitting the front page of HN.

[Since you're in this thread, now: Dustin, a quick "who I am" page which isn't a million pixels wide and describes more about yourself and your goals would go a long way toward credibility. Unless you're a pseudonym, and I respect that (look at my username), but your about page leads me to believe otherwise.]

That's possible today with just <img> <a>, so I'm not sure how this script makes that particular vector easier. It's just cool.

That wasn't the point that I was responding to (which is that it's difficult to move money around in traditional banks), but since you brought it up:

> The fees are dramatically cheaper (domestic wire transfers are at least $10, international are more like $30)

I pay no fee for the service I described. Not a penny.

> and there's no need to 'prove' anything.

This took a few hours, and was quite low-effort. Not a problem I'm looking to solve in my life, since I only did it once.

> With bitcoin, you can also do all this at anytime, not just within the 9-5 Mon-Friday, no holiday bank schedules.

As can I.

Why must there be a winner?

Werkzeug must support Python 3 before Flask can, and Armin has discussed Python 3 support here on HN before (and there's now a FAQ about it).

> But try transferring dollars electronically, or even just from one of your own accounts to another in a different bank.

In my Wells Fargo account, I can transfer to another bank's account in three clicks and about two minutes. All I had to do was set it up and prove that I own the other end. Deposits usually clear that day.

I'm not following. You're saying that Bitcoin's discovery is equivalent to the discovery of a new field of mathematics?

That part of my comment was specifically designed to annoy folks like you, because you really need to have a hard look at the safety of the currency that you love. The only people that are going to get upset about that are the zealots, and those that support Bitcoin strongly. It is that opinion which needs revision, since Bitcoin is costing people real money now with spectacular failures such as these.

That game started being played once there were graphs of Bitcoin vs. USD and people started converting back and forth and speculating. Remember that big pop of value? Yeah, me too. I almost cashed in on it, as I had generated a shitload of BTC (~$14,000 in 'value') using a big farm. Then I questioned the safety of the sites that would be giving me the USD when I wanted it, and thought better of it. Overseas business, without real regulation, is dangerous territory. Deleted the wallet, never looked back.

Bitcoin won't be prime time until the awfully-designed, one-man-band, usually-offshore-and-questionably-legal Web sites stop. The end.

> Which is kind of ridiculous, given that my response prompted you to correct something you had said.

I didn't correct it, I reworded it because you misunderstood.

> I don't know what incendiary language you're talking about except maybe "Fuck off, man" which is tit for tat

Stuff like my comment doesn't belong, you're going to tell me even if I'm pg, fuck off, pretty much half your comment.

> when you are advocating making something I've put money into, which is also completely harmless, illegal

I never advocated for such a thing, and it is your prejudices toward the word "regulation" that are driving your responses such as this one. There is heavy regulation on motor vehicles, which is why every time you get in a car, it doesn't explode and kill you.

> I'll probably regret saying that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't deserved.

I don't deserve any harassment for sharing my opinion. Ever.

A relevant one, for starters.

Which is why my comment has said, from the beginning, "as it stands today". Those interested in Bitcoin should seriously learn from those very mistakes that you're discussing, rather than re-learning them all over again.

Care to refute it in any way, or are you just going to post pointless noise?

"Innovate quickly and break things" is a strategy for social networks and games, not financial platforms nor life support systems. I hate that on one hand, we have people saying "Bitcoin is a totally real currency" and accepting payments, and on the other we have sites falling like flies to vulnerabilities and the defense being "we're just learning".

I claimed his incendiary language has no place on HN, as one of the guidelines is to be civil. I did not claim his post has no place on HN. It's also just good manners to not flame someone to death for attacking something you hold dear. Be objective, and reasonable.

More like a bank designed with an overly weak vault, because nobody at the bank spent a lot of time designing a very secure vault.

By "Bitcoin stuff", I mean the secondary markets that have arisen around it. That was probably a poor choice of phrase, and I'll update accordingly. I agree that Bitcoin itself is probably cryptographically strong and mostly well-designed.

To respond to your edit, regulation does not tell you how to spend your money. Regulation ensures that the systems accepting your money are designed against and proactively secured against failures such as this one, so you don't lose. FDIC insurance at your bank is an example of regulation designed to protect you. I have no interest in telling you how to spend your money; I do have an interest in the systems processing that money being reliable and safe.

I will ignore the rest of your needless incendiary comment, as it has no place on HN. You also don't need to inform everyone that I've edited my comment, as I did that for you at the base of it.

Not at all. These sites that are being repeatedly compromised and yet positioned as "the market" for Bitcoin are, for all intents and purposes, the currency. Compare to USD: banks, exchanges, conversion, speculation. Without them, USD is just me handing someone else some paper, and Bitcoin is just as useless without the "market" as defined by a few hobbyist Web devs, in this case.

Think about it. I can send a Bitcoin address some Bitcoins, which is equivalent to me handing someone else some cash. Anywhere you want to go from there requires an external market, and that includes:

    - Accepting Bitcoins online
    - Converting to Bitcoins
    - Speculating with Bitcoins

ALL of those things are a "secondary market" which, in turn, increase the value of the currency. Traditional currencies have extensive support structures built around them, and those structures are heavily regulated to avoid this exact scenario. So far, Bitcoin has some hobby Web sites without any real consequences for fucking up.

With all the disclosures and absolute failures of security and operations that we've seen coming out of the Bitcoin field, can we start to quell the attitude that the Bitcoin market as it stands today is a real currency market? The only people that seem to work on Bitcoin secondary trading mechanisms are people that just know how to write a Rails app, and most seem to lack security sense or reliability awareness. Personally, as a seasoned developer, even I know that I probably shouldn't write a currency trading platform alone. I'm aware of the ramifications and what can go wrong, and I'm smart enough to rule myself out.

I will never call Bitcoin a real currency until you see a platform that actually knows what it's doing. Really, I'm sorry, that's just how it is, and the Bitcoin fans that are about to show up and try to tell me otherwise are just as misled (and are inevitably going to be victims of being so myopic). If you want to call Bitcoin real money, it needs to be treated like real money. In software terms, that means it is a big deal.

There is a reason currency is regulated heavily. You are witnessing it.

Edit: Clarified that I'm not attacking Bitcoin itself.

Yet the others are full replacement browsers. I'd call Safari and Chrome (on desktop) entirely different browsers, because the browser itself is designed a lot differently in each case. The way Opera Mini works, I'd certainly call Opera Mini a different browser from Mobile Safari.

Who cares what the rendering tech is? Only Web designers and anal retentive people; everybody else just wants a browser experience, and doesn't give a shit. Honestly.

If only WebKit apps are permitted that means they're paying attention to securing just WebKit, which is good from my perspective even as a developer that supports open-source. I'm betting that in the future Android will be the Windows of yesteryear, where the first thing you do is install a virus scanner. Apple is selling me on closed platforms so far.